Europe’s Energy Strategy and South Stream’s Demise

President Vladimir Putin’s announcement on December 1 that Russia was abandoning plans to build a $50 billion gas pipeline throws down the gauntlet to the European Union and all its 28 member states.

If Putin sticks to his policy to scrap the South Stream project, which would have brought gas from Russia to Southeastern Europe, the move could turn out to be decisive for the EU’s energy strategy—if the EU uses that opportunity.

For one thing, the demise of South Stream could speed up the diversification of Europe’s energy sources. It could also encourage transparency in the energy sector. And it could bring into line those EU countries that have yet to ratify the EU’s third energy package, which is designed to introduce competition into Europe’s energy market. Those were the issues that South Stream had intended to impede.

From the beginning, South Stream was a project based on politics not economic rationale. Set up several years ago by the Russian energy giant Gazprom, South Stream brought together a consortium that included major energy companies from Austria, Italy, Hungary, and Bulgaria. The scheme had three goals.

The first was to bypass Ukraine as a crucial transit route for Russian gas destined for European customers. The EU is dependent on Russia for 30 percent of its gas supplies. Over half that gas goes through Ukraine, with the country earning big fees from Russia.

The gas disputes between Ukraine and Russia in 2005 and 2009 reinforced the Kremlin’s view that it had to weaken its dependence on that transit route.

The second reason for South Stream was to consolidate Russia’s grip over Southeastern and Central Europe by building a pipeline under the Black Sea. The pipeline would then weave its way up through Bulgaria and Serbia, with one spur branching off to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia and another continuing through Hungary to Austria (see map).

South Stream’s third goal was to undermine the rival Nabucco gas pipeline. This ill-conceived project had no serious political backing from all the member states. In 2013, Nabucco threw in the towel after the Trans Adriatic Pipeline won a bid to bring gas from Azerbaijan to Southeastern Europe.

South Stream’s demise now gives the EU’s energy and competition commissioners a chance to speed up the diversification of Europe’s energy sources and increase the bloc’s energy security.

Diversification and the construction of interconnectors would weaken Gazprom’s existing grip on the energy sectors in many of the countries that supported South Stream. They include Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany, Italy, Greece, and Slovenia, as well as non–EU member Serbia. In varying degrees, they all depend on Russia for their gas.

Scrapping South Stream could be decisive for the EU's energy strategy.

Energy diversification could also have the effect of introducing transparency over prices, contracts, and procurement procedures. That transparency is sorely lacking, especially in Bulgaria and Serbia.

The World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have repeatedly pointed out the endemic corruption in the region’s energy sector, which is largely dominated by local oligarchs, corrupt elites, and Russian interests.

Such malpractices are now being exposed by Nova Bulgaria, a new civil society movement in Bulgaria. The group has been writing about backroom deals and bribes between politicians, local businesspeople, and Gazprom.

Then there is the issue of the EU’s third energy package. Some members of the South Stream consortium, such as Bulgaria, were prepared to defy the EU’s energy liberalization legislation. Close ties to Russia took precedence over adhering to EU law until Brussels as well as the United States warned Bulgaria about what was at stake.

The EU’s third energy package is aimed at introducing more competition by breaking up energy monopolies. In essence, this means that the company that supplies the gas cannot own the pipeline. The pipeline has to be open to third-party access to foster competition, something that neither Gazprom nor the consortium members relished.

When the European Commission took a tough stance over the third energy package by warning Bulgaria and other EU member states that they would be in breach of EU law, Gazprom at first played down the pressure from Brussels. The company was prepared to test the resolve of the EU and the consortium over the EU’s energy liberalization package by going to the courts.

Putin put the blame for the demise of South Stream squarely on the EU. “The EU will not benefit from Russian gas any more. That is their choice,” he said when announcing the failure of the project. Yet with Putin needing every euro he can earn from gas sales to the EU, the idea of Gazprom walking away from Europe is fanciful.

" Yet with Putin needing every euro he can earn from gas sales to the EU, the idea of Gazprom walking away from Europe is fanciful."
Until only a couple of weeks ago an entire West Siberian gas field was exclusively assigned for Europe.
Now with the second Russia-China Mega Deal inked that field will be shared with China.
And with South Stream now dead in the water Europe might well have to pay Ukraine's gas bills to secure it's own supply.
The Euros that Russia would have made on South Stream it will largely make up in the Turkish deal.
But Europe need not worry. There's always ( the more expensive ) liquified gas option.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

gtiger

December 05, 201410:49 am

In order to build that pipeline even without dealing with the unresolved Third Energy Package issue, Gazprom would still have to spend an additional $20 billion. Given the difficulty in borrowing due to the sanctions and the political obstacles, it's rather clear why the Russians decided to abandon the project, and send gas to Turkey instead.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Frustrated

December 06, 201411:12 pm

Decisive move for EU? What about Bulgaria? What's left for Bulgaria? Great political decision for EU but what does Bulgaria get from this winning for EU deal? The country was going to be the loosing party in either case.. It is not surprising Bulgaria was supporting South Stream in a way - it had to look after it's own survival when EU has completely abandoned it and is not even interested that the country is struggling much more than Spain, Greece and Romania which got financial assistance or had their debt forgiven?!?!?! 40% of the young and educated people have left the country and the ones remaining live on or under the poverty line minimum wage per month is - 226 Euro, teachers get 300Euro and doctors - 500Euro ..which is also thanks to the corruption inside which doesn't seem to be subsiding or helped.. The country entered the EU with 10 000 million eхternal debt and now it's 50 000??? Bulgaria hasn't seen any good since becoming a member of the EU. If anything - it's actually worse... Traveling in Europe was the only benefit and that is for the ones who can afford it or the ones looking for survival elsewhere...

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Alar

December 08, 20142:25 am

South Stream is dead! Long live South Stream! By diverting the pipeline from Bulgaria to Turkey Putin may not only save South Stream but also extend Russia's series of gas-fuelled geopolitical co-dependencies to Turkey, driving a new wedge between that country and the EU. Let us hope - and work to ensure - that Turkey does not go for the bait.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

LOL

December 09, 20147:04 pm

LOL, the South Stream cancellation just confirmed what the bankrupt WEst should fear most of all: Nobody needs them anymore. Actually, the world can get by without them. Who needs their financing when their economies are all imploding? The emerging world is even a bigger market so they can just deal with each other & they will prosper, separate from the bankrupt Western markets which will just drag them down with their financial & political intrigues. NO, nobody needs the bankrupt West anymore, they should just retire in some hospice

Comment Policy

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.